It is always a depressing experience to read a comment thread having anything to do with feminism and find out what professional and amateur misogynists think feminism consists of. For example, our newish troll curmudgeon:

Meanwhile, the historical arc of feminist argumentation on the Internet has reached its bimodal zenith with…the argument that any woman who believes that being spoken to by a man seeking consensual sex is not an objectifying act is pro rape.

The reference, as Mr. Mudgeon confirmed later, is to the Rebecca Watson elevator incident that revealed Richard Dawkins to be a world-class concern troll. Dawkins’s apologists have generally distorted Watson’s unassailable argument beyond any possible recognition, but rarely in this purely dishonest a form. Let us compare the troll summary…

any woman who believes that being spoken to by a man seeking consensual sex is not an objectifying act is pro rape.

…with a summary that actually attempts to bear some resemblance to what Watson actually said, with the crucial differences highlighted:

Being hit on by someone following you into an elevator late at night in the immediate aftermath of giving a talk in which you explain how you’ve been affected by the tendency of men in the skeptic movement to view women as sexual objects regardless of the context is creepy and inappropriate.

Note also that there is no suggestion that “seeking consensual sex” is wrong in any context, and also no argument that what happened to her was “rape.” You’re welcome!

Because this entire thread started with exactly that premise, as evidenced by the post at the top of the comment thread? Don’t get me wrong, I understand what you mean, I just think that until we actually have equality, most of feminist activism is inescapably going to be dealing with male (and sometimes female) idiocy… That is, after all, the root o the problem: privilege, and people being butt hurt about losing it.

BTW, while I’m here I’d like to address the “trivial concerns” concern troll comments in the last feminazi thread…

What you think is trivial often isn’t. It may be trivial TO YOU, but it may be not be to other people. If you’re not a sociopath and have an understanding that other people exist, you will learn to accept this. Aaaaaaand–here’s the thing: “small” things are often indicative of *big* problems. For instance I’ve written a couple of times about “geek gate-keeping.” This may seem silly or trivial to you, but is in fact indicative of pervasive sexism involved in pursuing geeky pastimes. Which is, in turn, indicative of the undercurrent of sexism that runs through an awful lot of things. Now, if you’re a man and you’re an asshole, this may not matter a whole lot to you. But it matters to other people. So I suggest you DEAL WITH THAT.

No one opposes me seeking consensual sex, though I will suggest that perhaps the bitter anti-feminist obsessives of the Internet might try something other than, “Hi, we’ve never met, but I am interested in con sensually penetrating you and would rather not pretend to be interested in anything else,” as an opening line.

Just kidding! These guys should stick to that line, which has the benefit of honesty, and leave the flirting and dating to the grown-ups.

I’m not persuaded they are all that interested in the consent part, at least as you and I understand it. To a lot of them, wearing certain clothes, agreeing to go out on a date, engaging in mild flirting, etc. constitutes “consent”, and they can’t get their heads around why other people think it isn’t.

I’m currently teaching a Women’s Lit class in which feminist topics come up often (like six times a class). This very point came up last week: that is, whether a woman who went out to a party wearing low-cut, revealing clothing was “asking” to be raped.

I had to spend (along with the help of 3 or 4 other more enlightened students in the class) about 20 minutes explaining (among other things) the difference between “wanting sex” and “wanting to be raped.”

Recent evidence on religious belief would rather indicate the opposite, but I know what you meant! And agree. It’s stunning how many people, myself included profess blatant sexism we are not even aware of.

You know, I am forever gobsmacked by the SELF-DEHUMANIZATION men assume for themselves with this kind of attitude (on top of the obvious woman-dehumanization it employs). The assumption is that if a woman does, in fact, want to look sexy for, and have sex with, a PARTICULAR man, she must just want “Generic Sex” with any man at all, because “Men Are Entirely Interchangeable.” !!!11Eleventy!

Never mind how typically these dudes see women as robots, which is bad enough. It’s disturbing in its own special way to realize that they also see themselves as robots, only with dicks.

They want you to ‘consent’ without understanding what that means, in other words, that other people have thoughts and feelings too. It’s all, “I want to have sex with you, you should want me to have sex with you.”

Dick move, Mr. Lemieux. Not liking what someone has to say doesn’t make him a troll — Mr. Curmudgeon is engaging with his critics in good faith, and using your power as a frontpager like this is pretty disrespectful to someone clearly trying to make valid points.

And the Oppression Olympics *do* dominate the conversation on the Internet. Can’t argue with that.

* that a specific subculture on the Internet identifying itself as feminist has serious class and race issues (RaceFail ’09)

* at least in my reading, that this same subculture has made itself inaccessible to outsiders — terms like “spoons”, “safe space” and “geek gatekeeping” are not only a real barrier to effective outreach and communication, but has also become a shibboleth. (comment threads everywhere, and yes I have heard all of the arguments re: lack of spoons, repeating oneself, burden on the asker, etc.)

* that the same subculture is no longer bothering with the outreach and messaging necessary to persuade people; for example, a months-long flamewar about the phrase “trigger warning” (the Slacktiverse, not even getting into a conversation about misuse of the term “safe space”)

* that a specific subculture on the Internet identifying itself as feminist has serious class and race issues (RaceFail ’09)

Please to be identifying where curmudgeon discussed this.

* at least in my reading, that this same subculture has made itself inaccessible to outsiders — terms like “spoons”, “safe space” and “geek gatekeeping” are not only a real barrier to effective outreach and communication, but has also become a shibboleth. (comment threads everywhere, and yes I have heard all of the arguments re: lack of spoons, repeating oneself, burden on the asker, etc.)

If your big complaint is terminology, you are indeed among the professionally butthurt.

Because you personally don’t understand an abbreviation (which I would think would require maybe five seconds of thought to get, but what do I know?), it is therefore “jargon” and can be safely dismissed? Golly. It must be nice to be the center of the universe like that.

Between you here, and KennethNoisewater below, I’ve learned that asking for definitions of terms and engagement makes me a troll, and that I’m not allowed to participate in conversations until I’ve learned all the terminology; then, I’m mocked for asking about the terminology.

Sorry, Kenneth, crossposted — snark aimed at Malaclypse was not actually aimed at you, and thank you for offering to help me with my terminology issues.

———————–

I have been around for awhile, so I feel like I understand many of the concepts, but I feel like I don’t actually have a good grasp on the concept of “privilege”, as it’s recently evolved.

My understanding of the term as originally used was “people with power being blind and/or dismissive of the struggles of people without power,” but I’ve been hearing things like “trans privilege” and “disabled privilege”, which don’t really make sense to me.

I could also use some clarification of the term “safe space,” specifically in regards to what constitutes one, and whether there’s a common understanding for that yet.

My understanding of a safe space is an area that is actively policed to keep it safe, and it’s the enforcement that keeps it a safe space — but I’ve seen the opposite, and this has led to some sharp disagreements.

If someone rolls in saying, all wide-eyed and innocent and Just Wanting To Learn, “I don’t understand this ‘privilege” thing? Could someone not be a horrible meanie and just explain this one little bitty thing to me?” … it is time to pack up and stop paying attention, because this is station from which “My hair-splitting arguments prove privilege doesn’t exist because even though I am a white guy I am treated badly at work”-train departs.

If you will go back and reread, my point was “I do not understand how this term has evolved to mean the opposite of what I thought it meant.” I was informed that it has not, in fact, evolved, and that was the end result of a productive discussion.

I’ve never heard of “disabled privilege” or “trans privilege,” which don’t even thing like they could exist to me. The only privilege I have heard of re: trans issues that some men have had second thoughts about become trans women because they know they will lose privilege.

oh, bullshit. i’ve never been given grief, simply for asking the meaning of a term, anywhere. of course, how you ask might make a difference. just sayin’……………

“Way to build a welcoming, inclusive community!”

what made you think it was ever intended to be so? if i’m involved in it, i can guarantee you the polar opposite is true. i don’t get along, or play well, with others. especially so, for painfully obvious douchebags.

* that a specific subculture on the Internet identifying itself as feminist has serious class and race issues (RaceFail ’09)

And I’m sure cares deeply about this.

Serious according to whom? I’m not sure I’ve ever run across a feminist who didn’t take LBGT rights, economic inequality and racism incredibly seriously.
at least in my reading, that this same subculture has made itself inaccessible to outsiders — terms like “spoons”, “safe space” and “geek gatekeeping” are not only a real barrier to effective outreach and communication, but has also become a shibboleth. (comment threads everywhere, and yes I have heard all of the arguments re: lack of spoons, repeating oneself, burden on the asker, etc.)

Curmudgeon mentioned “geek gate-keeping?”

And how is mentioning something that’s real a “barrier to communication.” ? That’s a baffling line of thinking.

that the same subculture is no longer bothering with the outreach and messaging necessary to persuade people; for example, a months-long flamewar about the phrase “trigger warning” (the Slacktiverse, not even getting into a conversation about misuse of the term “safe space”)

There comes a point where the burden to change has to be on the shoulders who need to change. There also comes a point when someone who is teaching learns that person who wants to “learn” or “engage in a dialogue” really just wants to “troll.”

And certainly trolling is what Curmudgeon was doing throughout that entire thread. Sowwy.

There comes a point where the burden to change has to be on the shoulders who need to change. There also comes a point when someone who is teaching learns that person who wants to “learn” or “engage in a dialogue” really just wants to “troll.”

Theobald Smith, you should know that the “just asking questions” trope is a favorite of trolls because it very effectively derails discussion, makes the troll the center of attention, and wastes everybody’s time. If you start reading a new feminist blog, say, and start “just asking questions,” nobody will know whether you’re sincere or not, and they probably won’t react well. And frankly it is an assertion of privilege to interrupt an ongoing conversation to make everybody explain their terms to you. If you want definitions, use the fucking Google.

A very similar tactic is demand citations, constantly, even for matters of public record or assertions of opinion or personal belief. For example I was once excoriated over my failure, and refusal, to provide per reviewed proof that Canadian First Nations water supplies are being contaminated by oilsands development. A topic which has been extensively discussed in every Canadian media for years.

Like the JAQ technique it causes the defender to waste time acti g as the troll’s unpaid research assistant. If the defender replies by telling the troll to do his own damned research, he is hit by the hoary and usually incorrect assertion that the claimant must provide the proof.

Being an ally, though, means that you have to take some responsibility for your own education on the issues that are important to the community in which you wish to participate. You can get some of that from other members, and some of it you have to do on your own, especially if you’re joining in on a long-standing discussion in media res.

It also entails being willing to accept that you have to earn people’s trust and that you will make a lot of mistakes doing that along the way and you will take lumps for that.

Sure. What I am saying is that this process could be streamlined with the creation of resources, and by giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, there are trolls out there. That said, there are also a lot of people out there who don’t forgive mistakes made out of ignorance, and that hurts real people who might have otherwise *been* allies.

Nobody is obliged to accommodate you when you are in their space. Your needs aren’t any more important than those of the folks already there and in the middle of conversations. And based on some of the things you’ve written here, I’m not willing to accept that you’re just an innocent ally wanting to learn.

After all this wanking and reading up on RaceFail 09 which I had never heard of (even though I know who some of the principles are) because I have little to no interest in following scifi lit fandom online (I blame Warren Ellis), I cannot figure out for the life of me what relationship it has to the Rebecca Watson affair, which happened in the online atheist community, aside from there being a theme of privilege and trolls deploying derailing strategies to spooge all over certain blogs? And some “heroes” laying themselves low (such as both Dawkins and Thunderf00t in the atheism community) in the eyes of many?

No, seriously, what’s the connection? I’m sure there were some people lurking in both conversations, but during the Watson flame wars I followed, I don’t recall anyone mentioning RaceFail. (I thought it was a category of things, not an event, until today.)

This is conspiracy theorist kind of logic, one person belongs to this large group, which large group also was involved in this other thing, therefore the two are connected. Obama was a state senator and USS from Illinois, Rod Blagojevich was governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich tried to sell Obama’s open senate seat, Blagojevich was politically close to Jesse Jackson, Jr, Jesse Jackson Jr spent campaign funds on Michael Jackson memorabilia and the Build-A-Bear workshop, I BLAME OBAMA CHICAGO POLITICS HERPITY DERP.

See (1) all the women and (well, a few) people of color who are nominated for Nebulas this year (2) the (slight) increase in PoC and women who are being published by the Big Six these days (3) the *slightly* smaller chance when you pick up a SF anthology these days that every single name in the ToC will be a white straight male.

5. We must continue to study (discuss) these points interminably, because there’s still some scientific dispute about whether women are really people. The mere fact that this discussion has been going on since the mid 1960s (if not the mid 1800s) doesn’t mean that we can’t repeat points long refuted

6. It’s up to the feminists to reach out to us in language we can undestand, and to convince us. It’s not up to us to try to learn anything

7. As long as femists have no sense of humor, the proposition that women are people must remain merely an unproven assertion

any resemblance between these points and any actual points made on this blog is purely coincidental. See. e.g. The Internets.

I took him as meaning that curmudgeon believes them in good faith (which seems true), and am undecided if he actually agrees with curmudgeon…

Engaging and arguing with a troll is foolish. Doing so with a sincere true believer in something wrong or evil, however, is good works. Not only might you change their mind, you are also performing for an audience of thousands, a few of whom may be undecided.

Sure. But “never mind what Ruth Rosen says, we must now talk about what I think of feminism” followed by inflammatory misrepresentations is not engaging in a debate; it’s demanding that others engage in the debate I think we should have, because it’s what I think that’s important, and using the inflammatory misrepresentations as bait because what I think is probably not interesting enough to attract actual engagement.

It’s one of those not life threatening complications following a nearly terminal things. I feel a wierd combination of boredom and impatience most of the time. How dare this pesky superbug try and step up after I survived necrotizing fasciitis. Thanks for the good wishes:)

Yeah. Works for obvious trolls like jenn bob, not so good for people engaging I. Actual Debate. Do to much of that and suddenly all you have is a leftish version of the right wing echo chamber and that is good for nobody.

Theobald is wrong about most of this, but he ain’t a troll. Frankly, I hope he sticks around. Much like our friends Manju and Brad, he has the potential to stimulate actual informative discussion, rather than reflexive attack.

At least they promote discussion for the rational among us. It occurs to me that there is such a thing as a ‘reverse troll’. Someone so in-the-tank for a specific position that they immediately treat any disagreement as trollery. Such people act like hair trigger attack dogs, and are perhaps the origin of the PC/feminazi/crazy libertatian/xtian nut cliches, certainly I have met such people in almost every politically active group, they are a tiny and irrational minority of extremists but they certainly exist.

Because this entire thread started with exactly that premise, as evidenced by the post at the top of the comment thread? Don’t get me wrong, I understand what you mean, I just think that until we actually have equality, most of feminist activism is inescapably going to be dealing with male (and sometimes female) idiocy… That is, after all, the root o the problem: privilege, and people being butt hurt about losing it.

if the only competitors in the oppression Olympics are white men who don’t have sex very often, you might have a point. kind of like how Olympic basketball used to be, in that everyone pretended it mattered while the real competitors were excluded.

On the front page of your blog, you mock and shame someone posting out of ignorance, but in good faith, in order for your comments section to pile on to this guy. You’ve declared him an acceptable target, and told your community to bully him.

It’s not acceptable behavior when Kos or FDL does it, it shouldn’t be acceptable behavior here. (And I will mock anybody who responds with “tone argument fallacy”.)

I wonder sometimes if men understand how dispiriting it is for women to spend time on a site (or in a group) where they’re treated with respect, so they start to relax and feel like they’ve found a safe space, only to have something happen like Dawkins’ response to the Watson elevator incident. Surprise! You thought you were an equal part of this community and reasonable concerns on your part would be taken seriously–ha!

I have not experienced this, really. I’m atheist, but not really involved in the skeptic community (outside of reading blogs)…but I imagine it must be kinda devastating. Rebecca’s story kinda broke my heart.

The whole saga has been heartbreaking for me and many women in that community. It’s just gotten uglier and uglier, with more and more harassment, doxing, and death threats. And all because Rebecca Watson asked men to please consider how some pickup lines can come across and others brought up past harassment at conferences and asked for a policy regarding it. That’s all.

I had a conversation about this with my boyfriend the other night and he said that, while he’s an atheist, he’s never going to get involved in any organized atheist events because “they’re all assholes.” That’s how we’re now perceived.

Term from reddit/4chan. Anonymous coward trolls/script kiddies/bullies terrified somebody will find out their real name and mommy will take away computer privileges they might have to answer for their actions to the world at large.

Atheists are evangelizing non-theists. Many, if not most, come out of rejecting some extreme religious orthodoxy forced on them by their family. They unconsciously use the same tactics they were raised with to spread the new religion. Their priests are Dawkins and Hitchens.

It’s true! I’m constantly trying to force people to not believe in god. It’s my religion! Actually, deep down I really do believe in god, but I hate him, because I don’t like being told what to do. I’m so pissed off at wengler for finally figuring it all out.

I hate to say it, but I have encountered extremely evangelistic atheists quite a few times on teh interwebs. They are pretty obviously a tiny fraction of atheists (hell, I’m an atheist myself) but they squawk and shit much louder than the rest of us who simply don’t believe in a god…

Fortunately, aside from the frequent barbed comments about the excesses and abuses perpetrated by organized religion, you don’t see those people much in the more intellectual parts of the net. Spend a few days on a more ‘diverse’ part of the net like reddit, and watch the cranks and crazies and evangelists and fanatical libertarians swarm.

As an example, we have brad, reddit has hundreds of people who honestly believe you should be allowed to sell yourself into slavery, and that the US military should be privatized.

We have commie atheist. Reddit has hundreds of people who will publicly excoriate some one who uses the phrase ‘good god, man’ in a comment.

he’s never going to get involved in any organized atheist events because “they’re all assholes.”

Sorry, but that’s just lazy thinking on his part. This is the best possible time for a non-misogynist-a-hole to get involved. There are more events than ever focussing on equality issues and trying to keep the MRA element out. PZ Myers, Greta Christina, Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight, Ophelia Benson (anyone on FTB), etc. There are finally places for people who care about skepticism and want to move on to discussion of bigger issues without the distracting noise of privileged male whining.

I totally agree and I was a little irked at him about that comment (I mean, I’m an atheist, have an atheist fish on my car, etc.) I think he’s just suffering a little liberal burnout–too many horrors in the world, too little progress. And he grew up in the UK where religion isn’t as omnipresent as it is here, so it’s a little harder for him to see atheism as an urgent issue. But, yeah, I’m a huge fan of the FtB folks, especially PZ.

Hey, Theobald–want to see a real ally, not an “ally”? Check out PZ Myers’ Pharyngula blog.

Not that I should bother, but the post said that trivializing the very real differences between the two parties on matters of very great importance to everyday people in order to focus on the one issues where the two parties are the same and then to advocate for throwing your vote to a third party candidate based upon that was an argument that reeks of privilege.

And note that nothing at all in that post or anything else I have ever written said that opposition to drone warfare was illegitimate. If you want to characterize my arguments honestly, it would be a nice change.

Well I agree with the point that there are substantial and important differences between the two parties, and that F-Dorfs position is undoubtedly, in part, a result of his own privilege..but the post and comments were every bit as dismissive as curmudgeons anti-feminist rants, with absolutely no awareness shown by anyone of how their own privilege could lead to their stance on the issue

OT (since you’re 100% in the right that you never made such an argument against opposition to drone warfare, Erk): I agree that there are substantial differences between the two parties and that those who deny those differences are being silly or worse. But, in fact, the tiny group of people on the left making the argument last year that there was no difference included some people of color.

Well, IB, in my experience they are dominated by scared shitless whites, and I wonder why. Given that some of the big champions of DRONEZZZZ go on to make racist comments online when challenged, it just makes you wonder. Then you have some friends of mine who are big anticolonialists and so hate the US government (oh well, civil rights movement, right?) and champion any asshole who opposes the US even if they’re a lying puppet for the same kind of interests they’d hate at home. Fuck other people, it’s about being right. Privilege.

Most white males never think about what it would be like to be a young female, with a child or without, in an anarchic situation. Or being an ethnic minority (Like NOLA post Katrina). All they think about is their power fantasy of waving their semi-automatic and totally guillotining those rival older males the fascist assholes keeping us down.

I think there is some old Confederate shit behind the “drones!!!” garbage. This notion that the USG can never fire weapons on US citizens… guess what, it happened every time there was a civil insurrection. Yes, the US government has that power. That power has been used to various enforce tax laws, end the spread of the slave plantation state, enforce civil rights, or take them away (as in the Japanese internment camps). Hopefully on balance that power is used wisely. Most of the groups calling for civil insurrection are violently racist and opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So why are these rangy white lefties making common cause with Stormfront and glibertarians?

Yes, there’s a history of the US government using its state power to crush the labor movement. That may be part of the paranoia, although labor’s biggest gains in US history happened when labor finally got a friendly ear in high office (1930s).

Well I agree with the point that there are substantial and important differences between the two parties, and that F-Dorfs position is undoubtedly, in part, a result of his own privilege..but the post and comments were every bit as dismissive as curmudgeons anti-feminist rants, with absolutely no awareness shown by anyone of how their own privilege could lead to their stance on the issue

That wasn’t the first discussion on LGM about drone strikes and third-party voting. Both were issues that’d been pretty well-argued previous to that.

This is trolling for precisely the same reason crumudgen was trolling: it’s offering a highly tendentious and obviously controversial characterization of a previous internet controversy, at best tangentially related to present topic of discussion. There’s no reason whatsoever to assume this is done with any purpose other than derailing.

Yeah it’s probably trolling to a degree but also some bitterness at watching debate after debate shut down by such a US centric understanding of privilege. The unexamined xenophobia of large swathes of the US left. The race ad class divisions built into every movement. This rarely goes acknowledged, and it should
I don’t think it’s a ‘tendentious and obviously controversial’ reading of the debate, as a number of people made a similar point at the time (Jim Henley IIRC)

The fact that “a number of people made a similar point” does not make it not obviously controversial, particularly since a lot of those people, including Henley, already had issues with myself and this blog. Moreover, you still can’t find a single place where I said opposing drone warfare was a bad thing. The fact that people don’t understand how change actually happens in the United States is not my problem.

When I said “highly tendentious and obviously controversial characterization” doesn’t imply you’re the only one who held it, and I’m not sure why you’d think that particular observation would relevant. It’s an attempt to re-fight an old fight, rather than discuss the topic of the current thread. I don’t think Jim Henley is a troll for taking the position he did in the discussion you reference. If he went around trying to restart that argument in unrelated threads, months later, he’d be trolling. (Unlike you, he’s not a troll, which explains why he doesn’t do that.)

I can’t look into Curmudgeons heart, but would seriously doubt he cares all that much about race in feminism..I don’t really either tbh, before someone complains about me being disingenuous..
of course you can concentrate only on the good in a movement, but that doesn’t get you very far, and isn’t particularly helpful for those excluded..my only complaint is that the concept of privilege is used in such a limited and hypocritical manner..and if you want to attack others privilege you should acknowledge your own (that’s not directed specifically at you, obviously,but more generally)

Yeah, I don’t think closing your eyes to problems in a movement is a good idea. By the same token, i don’t think having someone squawk “BUT WHAT ABOUT ________?!!!!!” is great either.

You seem to think feminism is teeming with privileged people. Um, ok. But you do realize that people can be privileged in one way (for instance being smart/well-educated/conventionally attractive/wealthy/white) while being vulnerable to oppression in another, right?

I can care about female genital mutilation and care about geek gate-keeping at the same time. It is possible to do this.

“you do realize that people can be privileged in one way (for instance being smart/well-educated/conventionally attractive/wealthy/white) while being vulnerable to oppression in another, right?”

I do. Absolutely. My problem is less with feminism and the real problems it highlights, than with how the rhetoric of privilege is used to shut down debate.
And yes, I accept that’s not really relevant here.

Ronan, the race and class divisions on the left in the U.S. are discussed quite frequently. It largely depends on what blogs you read.

For that matter, the same goes for the divisions over gender. I could go over to Naked Capitalism, for example, and find lots of dudes who don’t want to discuss anything but socioeconomic class and who impugn anything else as “identity politics.”

Remember, professional butthurtisrs (vs. the spoof trolls and I’m not sure where Mr. Cur Mudgeon lands on that scale) have been reduced to whingeing around the internet because that’s all they gots.

I’m sure someone could work out a scale that shows there is a strong correlation between the vituperativeness of a sincere troll’s comments and his awareness that his opinions don’t matter

I’m thinking more of what I saw right after MD legalized equal marriage and again when the state started issuing licenses. See also, the later part of 2007. But I believe the rule applies whenever a bigot is reminded that he has received his ass on a platter.

Just my thumbnail reading of the schism afflicting the skeptical community. It seems like it attracts two distinct types: People who are genuinely interested in promoting rationality and scientific approaches to lots of different topics, and sneering, know-it-all, lonely fan-boy boobs.

Coincidentally, skepticism also seems to have a libertarian contingent too. Hmm.

my beef with the sceptical movement is the extension of ‘rationality’ to cover the opinions of scientists on areas where they are not expert, and where their rationality is actually rationalisation of their existing biases. As an example, the ‘rational’ approach to propositioning women in elevators.

Are you sure you’re talking about scientists and not engineers? PZ Myers is a scientist, and he backed up Watson. And a lot of online feminists are scientists.

While there is crossovers and it’s not an iron rule, I find science education attracts and inculcates a vastly different attitude from engineering school, which seems to stamp out the socially awkward, libertarian drones who make so much unwittingly offensive commentary on any thread involving ‘teh females’, wrapping pseudoscientific base claims with artful logical constructions and having no notion of how ridiculous that looks.

both groups do it; good on Myers for backing her up, but Dawkins didn’t.

It’s a fundamental problem for the Brights or any atheist group who start advocating living rationally or living according to science. The scientific jury is still out on how much we can trust our introspective evaluation of our own reasoning processes. if anything, the answer suggested by the data is’not very much.’ or inability to be honest assessors of our own behaviour is the reason that science is done through peer review and repeatable experiments. Rationality ends up being another word for what feels right. scientists, engineers and academics all do it, though science tends to get used as the imprimatur.

with a summary that actually attempts to bear some resemblance to what Watson actually said

The odd thing is that there are so many seemingly agreeable trolls who will respond with “well okay, but” and go on with their objections as if Watson is still somehow ubergruppenführer of the cock-chopping commandos. It’s hard to let go of the fury.

[Bob]: Oh boy… Mark, look, as much as you want to white knight for women (I’m sorry, do you prefer it to be spelled womyn?) on the Internet, Anita Sarkeesian is as much of a feminist as a giraffe is a hippopotamus. I’m not going to argue with you on the Internet because no one ever wins, so all I’m going to say is that I dislike that woman a lot, and whether you agree with why I dislike her or not I couldn’t care less. It doesn’t change the fact that she is a piece of shit because she ignores any and all criticism, she pushes her own personal agenda, she’s a hypocrite, and she is a scam artist.
Her entire “career” is to point out everyone’s privilege, but she should take a step back, shut the fuck up for a minute, and look in a mirror. I’m sure she can afford quite a few mirrors after she scammed all those Internet retards out of $160,000.

[Mark]: Heh. Therefore, when Bob said “most of the feminists you see/hear about are bat shit crazy assholes that want to rape and castrate men,” he was in no way employing the straw feminist trope.

[Bob]: If you stopped using childish made up logical fallacies in conversations, people might actually continue talking to you.

At the time I didn’t know that the woman in the video was Anita Sarkeesian or that she was the same woman having all sorts of trouble with gamers around that time; I just thought the video made the point well. As did Bob, in his own way.

I’m not going to argue with you on the Internet because no one ever wins, so all I’m going to say is that I dislike that woman a lot, and whether you agree with why I dislike her or not I couldn’t care less. It doesn’t change the fact that she is a piece of shit because she ignores any and all criticism

Maybe I’m just too cowardly but I have learned to never read the comments on anything to do with female sexuality, abortion, rape, or gun control. Oh yeah, and Christianity. The level of ignorance and prejudice scares me too much.

Interesting, as I recall reading it in an exhaustive list of slang terms for the vagina not very long ago. Apparently the neologism came from the shape of the Labia ( there was reference to the phrase ‘man in the canoe’ used for the clitoris) and that of course douche implies that said vagina is smelly, dirty and in need if cleaning.

Urban dictionary is about as valuable a source as my memory, I would say.

Is “shower of wankers” a reference to group urine play? Obviously it’s a contraction of “golden shower” plus “wanker”, which means a masturbator, so obviously that literally means a reference to things coming (hehe) out of a dick. Two can play this game!

Never argue with a determined folk etymologist. Halfway between eating your cold slaw and ruining your plumbing with duct tape you realize that for all intensive purposes you’re living someone else’s unlearned, unimaginative life.

the argument that any woman who believes that being spoken to by a man seeking consensual sex is not an objectifying act is pro rape.

In response to Watson’s original video, Stef McGraw said:

…My concern is that she takes issue with a man showing interest in her. What’s wrong with that? How on earth does that justify him as creepy? Are we not sexual beings? Let’s review, it’s not as if he touched her or made an unsolicited sexual comment; he merely asked if she’d like to come back to his room. She easily could have said (and I’m assuming did say), “No thanks, I’m tired and would like to go to my room to sleep.”…

To which Watson responded:

I hear a lot of misogyny from skeptics and atheists, but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another. It also negatively affects the women who are nervous about being in similar situations. Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?”

Curmudgeom overstates, but Scott understates.

Watson’s initial comment was fine, Dawkins’s reaction was too much, her boycott reaction to his reaction was too much, her reaction to Stef McGraw’s reaction was too much, hateful comments on youtube are bad, lumping all disagreement in with hateful comments on youtube is bad, dividing the world into “in agreement with Watson on all things elevatorgate” and “hateful misogynists” is bad.

there is no suggestion that “seeking consensual sex” is wrong in any context

Probably this means “..in every context…”, but if not, there was at least *one* context where (ambiguously) seeking consensual sex was bad.

That’s a total misreading of Watson’s quoted response, Kiwanda. There’s nothing there that contradicts Scott’s description of the controversy. As to your concluding sentence: At the end of the day, one of the things Watson was, indeed, suggesting is that there are certain ways of seeking consensual sex that predictably and understandably make most women feel uncomfortable and that men should refrain from engaging in. I would have have thought that such a sentiment was uncontroversial, but the continual attempt of so many folks to dispute it (and to condemn Watson for saying so) suggests otherwise…and actually further validates Watson’s response to McGraw that you quote.

Not sure how I can give a “total misreading” when I barely gave a reading. Curmudgeon stated Watson’s response as painting people such as McGraw as “pro-rape”. That was overstating. Scott’s claim that Curmudgeon’s description was a distortion “beyond any possible recognition” is an understatement of Watson’s treatment of disagreement.

continual attempt of so many folks to dispute it (and to condemn Watson for saying so)

If you can find anybody in that discussion who disputes the general idea that some ways of seeking consensual sex should be refrained from, please point them out.

There’s nothing in the quoted passage from Watson that suggests anything remotely similar to the view that McGraw is “pro-rape.” So, no, it does not show the truth as lying somewhere in between.

If you can find anybody in that discussion who disputes the general idea that some ways of seeking consensual sex should be refrained from, please point them out.

As I said, I was responding to your final, attempted gotcha (“there was at least *one* context where (ambiguously) seeking consensual sex was bad”). I’m glad you find the general idea acceptable. So what, exactly, is your beef with Watson?

She didn’t say it was bad. She said that men should consider how they come across in these situations. It was the middle of the night in a hotel in a foreign country and she was alone in an elevator with a man she didn’t know well after she’d just been saying she has a problem with men sexualizing women in conference situations. It’s not wrong, but men should understand that this is going to be frightening to a lot of women because of their past experiences; hell, a lot of women wouldn’t have gotten on that elevator. I would have done it, but I would have been a bit nervous about it.

Also, too, I think you can find people in the discussion (not necessarily Watson in initial comments) who think asking people for coffee, late at night (though things are evidently still hopping downstairs), in a foreign country (Ireland), in an enclosed space (soon to be open), *morally* bad. Again, like most people I think, no particular objection to Watson’s initial comments.

Probably this means “..in every context…”, but if not, there was at least *one* context where (ambiguously) seeking consensual sex was bad.

But not because sexual interest qua sexual interest is bad, but because of the context and manner in which such interest was expressed. That’s all that Watson was getting at, McGraw missed that point entirely, and Watson took a lot of undeserved shit from other people who appeared to be actively trying to miss the point.

Sure, McGraw didn’t focus, as she should have, on that aspect. That doesn’t mean that McGraw was “parroting misogynistic thought”, and metaphorically bringing in victims of rape to condemn McGraw was well over the line.

McGraw argued that because people are “sexual beings,” nothing short of unconsensual touching or explicit sexual speech by a man can be criticized even as “creepy” (let alone something worse). Watson, correctly, points out that this is a common, misogynistic argument. This is not simply a question of McGraw failing to focus on the right things. It’s a question of McGraw directly ruling out women criticizing any male behavior short of fondling or explicit speech.

THOSE WOMEN ARE NOT METAPHORS. Rape is not a metaphor. It is a real thing that happens to many women. Those women are real and Watson is invoking them as an example of real people who are really hurt and inhibited by exactly that kind of victim-blaming.

I am sorry for getting upset, but there is some shit I can’t put up with.

This is a ludicrous misreading of Watson’s follow-up comment. Again, she didn’t compare making an obviously inappropriate pass to rape. She did say that one reason to avoid inappropriately hitting on people in enclosed spaces is that they may have been sexually assaulted in the past. See the difference?

My admiration of him was not as an atheist, but as a scientist. His lay and explanations of evolutionary biology blew my mind. To find out that in his private life he was not only am offensively evangelistic atheist, but a sexist and cowardly bully with the morals of Torquemada, was fairly disheartening.

I’m an atheist myself, but frankly I am damned tired of hearing atheists preach the one true lack of religion.

It would appear that Curmudgeon / Theobold Smith’s objections to what they call “internet feminism” could be neatly distilled into the following plaintive howl: women are on my interwebz, and instead of obeying my demands of tits or GTFO, they’re talking to one another! Coooooties!

The bloggers here must get paid a bonus by George Soros every time they use the word ‘troll’ (*), because the word is used more here than on any other blog I’ve ever seen. Dissent from the left, and you’re a Naderite troll. Dissent from the center, and you’re a Broderite troll. Dissent from the right, and you’re a plain old troll.

I love the bubble that so many seem here to live in, but newsflash: disagreeing with you doesn’t make people trolls. (Nor does disagreeing with your view of feminism make one sexist, let alone “misogynist”.)

Jesus, Davey, dissent would be a starting point. You posted in the Ruth Rosen thread whining a propos of absolutely nothing about people being called sexists for disagreeing with Loomis. Do you have a point or are you that enamoured of the sound of your own screeching?

Nonsense. Most of the times the term “troll” is used here correctly: those who seek by inflammatory comments to make the conversation about their comments, not about the post’s topic. What about JenBob’s performance doesn’t meet that definition?

I don’t know that I’ve seen his comments because they get deleted so fast. But from people’s reactions here, I’m willing to accept that he is a troll. But everyone who dissents around here gets labelled a “troll” a term which carries with it the connotation of insincerity, an element lacking from most of the applications here, by both commenters and bloggers. (I would further note that by definition so-called “concern trolling” is not an attempt to make inflammatory comments, as the whole point is to feign one’s membership in the group.)

In addition to this very post, from a quick google search of this site: last week, Loomis said, “Andrew Revkin of the New York Times continues his climate trolling.” (I get that he doesn’t like Revkin because Revkin doesn’t get hysterical enough about climate change — but what about Revkin’s comments were “trolling”?) Lemieux called a silly NYT “trend” piece (but I repeat myself) about hipsters in suburbia “trolling.”

In recent weeks, a commenter called Cory Booker a “concern trolling Democrat.” Another one said, speaking of abortion, that anybody who claimed to care about process was a concern troll. Someone called Data Tutashkhia a troll. (He’s a Stalinist apologist, but I’ve seen no evidence that he’s not sincere about it.) Another commenter called Stephen Diamond a “troll.” Another person labeled anyone who dissented from the hagiography of Aaron Swartz a troll, explicitly calling people who “are normally thoughtful and on the side of the good in these kinds of matters” trolls if they disagreed. Joe from Lowell was called a “troll” because he took a position in favor of dress codes / school uniforms and noted that it was just possible that what students wear might affect the learning environment.

That’s just a few quick examples. The word appears hundreds and hundreds of times in comments around here.

I honestly don’t think Davey is trolling. I think he’s legitimately as whiny and self-indulgent irl as he comes off in his posts. But good god, if this website hurts his feelings so bad he should probably stop reading it.

But everyone who dissents around here gets labelled a “troll” a term which carries with it the connotation of insincerity, an element lacking from most of the applications here, by both commenters and bloggers

This is not so much a “here” thing so much as it’s an internet thing. It’s annoying, but what are you going to do? Personally I don’t even mind insincerity, per se, so long as the person is being substantive. Across the internet many trolls, “trolls,” unintentional trolls* and those who respond to them often aren’t, though. One of the reasons I like reading & commenting here is that people mostly do try to have good faith conversations.

*People who genuinely believe “your an obot socialist!!!” is a worthwhile comment.